Laserfiche WebLink
in the legal process that the entire measure would not be overturned. Mayor Torrey urged the <br />council to seek a compromise position, adding that the issue was not time-sensitive. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked the board to seek a compromise position to put before the voters. He said that <br />the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations should attempt to seek changes that <br />enable the City to assess fees on the basis of quantity, but given the current makeup of the State <br />legislature, he doubted those efforts would go far. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that the proposal before the council was the only legally defensible position the City <br />had. He did not like the fact the council had no other options, saying he preferred there be a <br />more direct relationship between the program and the fees, but supported the option as the only <br />one the council had. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly doubted the board would have an alternative recommendation because of the all the <br />work it had already done on the topic. He believed the council needed to take care of fees for <br />the current year and move the item to a public hearing, but wanted the board to sit down and find <br />some common ground on both the fee question and related issues. He endorsed a <br />comprehensive review and revision of the amendment by the board if it could find consensus on <br />the issues involved. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson did not think the council had only one option. She did not think it was a good <br />idea for a charter amendment to address the level of specificity the right-to-know amendment <br />included. She thought a charter amendment should be about the form of government and high- <br />level policies. She did not think the charter amendment could be fixed. The public wanted those <br />responsible to pay, but the proposal would alter the citizens' understanding of the program if <br />those not using hazardous materials were also required to pay for the program. Ms. Nathanson <br />said that many of those who had previously said that the charter amendment could not be <br />changed were now asking the council to change it through an ordinance, and she did not think it <br />was fair. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not think the council was changing the charter. It was retaining the amendment <br />with the exception of the section struck down by the court, and abiding by the court decree. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that those had spoken to about the subject were generally well-informed but <br />unaware of the threshold for chemical use; they had all believed that all users reported and paid. <br />He supported the option before the council. Regarding the mayor's remarks, Mr. Meisner said <br />he would oppose asking the board to develop amendments to the charter. He said that directing <br />the board to develop a charter amendment just put the "political heat" on the board instead of the <br />council. In addition, that would not stop further legal challenges from those who continued to <br />object to the charter amendment on the grounds it was duplicative of State programs and <br />burdensome to small businesses. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said the option before the council was reasonable and the ordinance approach <br />superior to asking the voters to consider an amendment. He said it represented the minimum <br />necessary change, and showed leadership in maintaining the program for the current year. Mr. <br />Rayor said the court's nullification of a single clause in the amendment fell below the threshold of <br />what the council should be taking to the voters. He acknowledged the concerns of industry, but <br />believed that the option was faithful to the will of the voters, and "in some strange way" faithful to <br />industry as well. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />